Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Snark photo album

Expand Messages
  • fernando soto
    Hi Peter, I would ignore him if I knew that he (and Robert B.) wasn t confusing new comers to LC studies. Because he posts as though his stuff was regular
    Message 1 of 77 , Nov 8, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Peter,

      I would ignore him if I knew that he (and Robert B.) wasn't confusing new comers to LC studies.  Because he posts as though his stuff was regular research, I sometime think that it ought to be opposed, or shown for what it is - one man's weird ideas.  I have better things to do with my time, but it may be better to deal with Goetz and Robert in the bud stage than later.

      All best,


      From: peter wesley-smith <peterws@...>
      To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sun, November 8, 2009 5:21:57 PM
      Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Snark photo album



      I assume you enjoy engaging in this quasi-debate with Goetz. If I'm wrong in that, why not just ignore him? My suspicion is that he enjoys winding you up and irritating or perplexing most of the rest of us. If no one ever responded, perhaps he'd tire of it all.


      On 09/11/2009, at 9:15 AM, fernando soto wrote:


      No, my answer is twofold: that it is 49.99% below the lower 50% you mention, and that "this exercise is a waste of time".


      From: GoetzK <goetzkluge.0001@ no-soliciting. org>
      To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Sun, November 8, 2009 4:57:11 PM
      Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Snark photo album


      Ad rem: The question was simple. I assume that your answer is "below 50%"


      --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, fernando soto <ferjsoto42@ ...> wrote:
      > I agree with Michael: your presentation of the same pictures over and over again does not prove anything other than your idea (fixe?) that they are connected.
      > At least one of the choices in your survey should be "is this whole question absurd?" or "is this exercise a waste of time?" In my opinion this is an apparent need because you try and sway the "perceiver" with your presenting the two pictures side by side as though they are linked, by your use of the little squares, rectangles, the "magnification of parts", etc. It is also problematic when you name the two unrelated pictures, such as "sheepboxes" or "bonnetheads" . All of these "tricks" tend to point to a dishonest or tainted study.
      > Fernando
      > ____________ _________ _________ __
      > From: Michael Everson <everson@... >
      > To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Sun, November 8, 2009 4:37:08 PM
      > Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Snark photo album
      > On 8 Nov 2009, at 21:16, GoetzK wrote:
      > > Ad rem. We take
      > > http://www.snrk/. de/HolidayGheera ertsFiltered. jpg as an example.
      > >
      > > Hypothesis: Henry Holiday quoted in his illustration (left picture)
      > > from that
      > > etching by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder (right picture).
      > >
      > > In your view as a beholder of that pair of pictures, how high is the
      > > probability
      > > that the hypothesis is true?
      > > - below 50%
      > > - above 50%
      > There is no probability that the hypothesis is true, in my opinion,
      > and frankly I am very, very bored with being asked to look at this
      > picture over and over again.
      > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

    • Michael Everson
      ... Oh, drat. And here I was hoping this could be the end. Goetz, you have been showing us and wanting us to talk about your pictures and your theory for
      Message 77 of 77 , Jan 9, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On 9 Jan 2010, at 19:10, GoetzK wrote:

        >> Deb's approach sounds very sensible. So why don't we go by it?
        > Yes. It is a good start.

        Oh, drat. And here I was hoping this could be the end.

        Goetz, you have been showing us and wanting us to talk about your
        pictures and your theory for months now.

        For my part, I don't *care* about these illustrations any more; in
        fact, this over analysis has put me off caring about the Snark *at all*.

        Your incessantly regular re-posting of links to your genius site has
        pretty much squelched all other discussion on this list. Nobody much
        had a chance to talk about Keith's new book, or my new edition of
        Richards. Because it's alllllll about Goetz and his Rorschach readings
        of some Holiday's drawings.

        What a bore.

        You go on and on explaining to us how you blow up badly pixellated
        images and blur them, as though this had any merit at all. Holiday and
        Carroll never ever considered pixels, unless perhaps in gazing at a
        Persian carpet.

        > Good question. And why would he display a mirror view of the mouth
        > only (http://holiday.snrk.de/img/PriestInMouth2.jpg) without
        > mirroring the whole head? Do we talk about shape and form or already
        > about meaning?

        Does anybody care? I sure don't. I'd really like to see this list talk
        about something interesting for a change.

        Fernando said:

        >> On the other hand, when you are provided with much more probable
        >> connections - Huxley's, Hancher's and my own work on Tenniel's use
        >> of Salvador Rosa's picture, found in a book owned by CARROLL - you
        >> are not interested. There we have a real probable connection to
        >> Carroll, and we can give a lot of context and a theory for the
        >> reason the borrowing took place.
        > Yes. That makes research easier and safer. What you found is pretty
        > clear. There are lots of interesting things. And I don't question
        > your findings. But I simply like Carroll's "Snark" a lot. And
        > seemingly the cooperation between Carroll and Holiday went very well.

        Yes, but you're spoiling our enjoyment of the Snark and indeed of
        Holiday. Give it a rest! Take your theory over to http://thecarrollforum.proboards.com/
        where you can start a thread, and if people are interested in the
        thread they can talk with you about it there. But I (as moderator) am
        really tired of getting the same old posts from you with the same old
        links to the same old images week after week.

        Maybe your ideas have some merit, but they've ceased to be
        interesting, or fresh.

        >> This why I keep telling you that your project reminds me of not
        >> seeing the forest for the trees, or looking so intently at the
        >> stars that one falls into a Wonderland well, to one's own peril.

        Fernando, I think your use of metaphor is falling on deaf ears.

        > Gaussian bluring helps to focus on the forest without getting
        > distracted by the trees.

        No it doesn't; nor does it have any relevance to the clarity which
        Carroll and Holiday sought.

        > People who knew and know that, used that trick in old times by
        > watching the scene through bird feathers. Today GIMP helps (http://holiday.snrk.de/SnarkSearch.cgi
        > ). People, who do not know that when comparing images, call the
        > result "blurry crap".

        I know how to squint to see something. I also know that I am little
        interested in looking and your blurry crap any longer.

        I'd like to consider this topic closed for AT LEAST six months. Goetz,
        take it to the other forum. Anybody else, you want to talk about it,
        please do it on the other forum. The topic is smothering all other
        discussion here.

        If you won't take this advice, I may choose to exercise my powers as
        moderator. Not out of animosity toward you or toward your work, but
        out of a concern for the welfare of the discussions on this forum.

        Respectfully (whether you believe me or not),
        Michael Everson
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.